| Message ID | 1493786795-28153-1-git-send-email-oza.oza@broadcom.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
I will send v2 after removing GERRIT details from commit message. My apologies for the noise. Regards, Oza
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> wrote: > current device framework and of framework integration assumes > dma-ranges in a way where memory-mapped devices define their > dma-ranges. (child-bus-address, parent-bus-address, length). > > of_dma_configure is specifically written to take care of memory > mapped devices. but no implementation exists for pci to take > care of pcie based memory ranges. > > for e.g. iproc based SOCs and other SOCs(suc as rcar) have PCI > world dma-ranges. > dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; > > this patch serves following: > > 1) exposes interface to the pci host driver for their > inbound memory ranges > > 2) provide an interface to callers such as of_dma_get_ranges. > so then the returned size get best possible (largest) dma_mask. > because PCI RC drivers do not call APIs such as > dma_set_coherent_mask() and hence rather it shows its addressing > capabilities based on dma-ranges. > for e.g. > dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; > we should get dev->coherent_dma_mask=0x7fffffffff. > > 3) this patch handles multiple inbound windows and dma-ranges. > it is left to the caller, how it wants to use them. > the new function returns the resources in a standard and unform way > > 4) this way the callers of for e.g. of_dma_get_ranges > does not need to change. > > 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory > by the new function. > > Bug: SOC-5216 > Change-Id: Ie045386df91e1e0587846bb147ae40d96f6d7d2e > Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-on: http://gerrit-ccxsw.broadcom.net/40428 > Reviewed-by: vpx_checkpatch status <vpx_checkpatch@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> > Tested-by: vpx_autobuild status <vpx_autobuild@broadcom.com> > Tested-by: vpx_smoketest status <vpx_smoketest@broadcom.com> > Tested-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> All these non-person, probably internal Broadcom Tested-by and Reviewed-by's should be removed too. > Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> > Rob
[apologies for the silence - I've been on holiday] On 03/05/17 05:46, Oza Pawandeep wrote: > current device framework and of framework integration assumes > dma-ranges in a way where memory-mapped devices define their > dma-ranges. (child-bus-address, parent-bus-address, length). Well, yes, that is simply the definition of dma-ranges, and remains true regardless of the particular format of either bus address. > of_dma_configure is specifically written to take care of memory > mapped devices. but no implementation exists for pci to take > care of pcie based memory ranges. That still doesn't make sense. To repeat myself again, PCI devices *ARE* memory-mapped devices. Yes, there do exist some platforms where I/O space is not treated as MMIO, but config space and memory space are very much memory-mapped however you look at them, and in the context of DMA, only memory space is relevant anyway. What *is* true about the current code is that of_dma_get_range() expects to be passed an OF node representing the device itself, and doesn't work properly when passed the node of the device's parent bus directly, which happens to be what pci_dma_configure() currently does. That's the only reason why it doesn't work for (single-entry) host controller dma-ranges today. This does not mean it's a PCI problem, it is simply the case that pci_dma_configure() is the only caller currently hitting it. Other discoverable, DMA-capable buses like fsl-mc are still going to face the exact same problem with or without this patch. > for e.g. iproc based SOCs and other SOCs(suc as rcar) have PCI > world dma-ranges. > dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; > > this patch serves following: > > 1) exposes interface to the pci host driver for their > inbound memory ranges > > 2) provide an interface to callers such as of_dma_get_ranges. > so then the returned size get best possible (largest) dma_mask. > because PCI RC drivers do not call APIs such as > dma_set_coherent_mask() and hence rather it shows its addressing > capabilities based on dma-ranges. > for e.g. > dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; > we should get dev->coherent_dma_mask=0x7fffffffff. > > 3) this patch handles multiple inbound windows and dma-ranges. > it is left to the caller, how it wants to use them. > the new function returns the resources in a standard and unform way > > 4) this way the callers of for e.g. of_dma_get_ranges > does not need to change. > > 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory > by the new function. Which flags would ever actually matter? DMA windows aren't going to be to config or I/O space, so the memory type can be assumed, and the 32/64-bit distinction is irrelevant as it's not a relocatable BAR; DMA-able system memory isn't going to be read-sensitive, so the prefetchable flag shouldn't matter; and not being a BAR none of the others would be relevant either. > > Bug: SOC-5216 > Change-Id: Ie045386df91e1e0587846bb147ae40d96f6d7d2e > Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-on: http://gerrit-ccxsw.broadcom.net/40428 > Reviewed-by: vpx_checkpatch status <vpx_checkpatch@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> > Tested-by: vpx_autobuild status <vpx_autobuild@broadcom.com> > Tested-by: vpx_smoketest status <vpx_smoketest@broadcom.com> > Tested-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> > Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci.c b/drivers/of/of_pci.c > index 0ee42c3..ed6e69a 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/of_pci.c > +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci.c > @@ -283,6 +283,83 @@ int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, > return err; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources); > + > +/** > + * of_pci_get_dma_ranges - Parse PCI host bridge inbound resources from DT > + * @np: device node of the host bridge having the dma-ranges property > + * @resources: list where the range of resources will be added after DT parsing > + * > + * It is the caller's job to free the @resources list. > + * > + * This function will parse the "dma-ranges" property of a > + * PCI host bridge device node and setup the resource mapping based > + * on its content. > + * > + * It returns zero if the range parsing has been successful or a standard error > + * value if it failed. > + */ > + > +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) > +{ > + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); > + int rlen; > + int ret = 0; > + const int na = 3, ns = 2; > + struct resource *res; > + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; > + struct of_pci_range range; > + > + if (!node) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + parser.node = node; > + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); > + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; > + > + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); > + > + if (!parser.range) { > + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", > + np->full_name); > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); > + > + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { This is plain wrong - of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards through parent "ranges" properties, which is completely backwards for DMA addresses. Robin. > + /* > + * If we failed translation or got a zero-sized region > + * then skip this range > + */ > + if (range.cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || range.size == 0) > + continue; > + > + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!res) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto parse_failed; > + } > + > + ret = of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, res); > + if (ret) { > + kfree(res); > + continue; > + } > + > + pci_add_resource_offset(resources, res, > + res->start - range.pci_addr); > + } > + > + return ret; > + > +parse_failed: > + pci_free_resource_list(resources); > +out: > + of_node_put(node); > + return ret; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_dma_ranges); > #endif /* CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI > diff --git a/include/linux/of_pci.h b/include/linux/of_pci.h > index 0e0974e..617b90d 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of_pci.h > +++ b/include/linux/of_pci.h > @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static inline void of_pci_check_probe_only(void) { } > int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, > unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, > struct list_head *resources, resource_size_t *io_base); > +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources); > #else > static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, > unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, > @@ -83,6 +84,12 @@ static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, > { > return -EINVAL; > } > + > +static inline int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, > + struct list_head *resources) > +{ > + return -EINVAL; > +} > #endif > > #if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_MSI) >
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote: > [apologies for the silence - I've been on holiday] > > On 03/05/17 05:46, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >> current device framework and of framework integration assumes >> dma-ranges in a way where memory-mapped devices define their >> dma-ranges. (child-bus-address, parent-bus-address, length). > > Well, yes, that is simply the definition of dma-ranges, and remains true > regardless of the particular format of either bus address. > >> of_dma_configure is specifically written to take care of memory >> mapped devices. but no implementation exists for pci to take >> care of pcie based memory ranges. > > That still doesn't make sense. To repeat myself again, PCI devices *ARE* > memory-mapped devices. Yes, there do exist some platforms where I/O > space is not treated as MMIO, but config space and memory space are very > much memory-mapped however you look at them, and in the context of DMA, > only memory space is relevant anyway. > > What *is* true about the current code is that of_dma_get_range() expects > to be passed an OF node representing the device itself, and doesn't work > properly when passed the node of the device's parent bus directly, which > happens to be what pci_dma_configure() currently does. That's the only > reason why it doesn't work for (single-entry) host controller dma-ranges > today. This does not mean it's a PCI problem, it is simply the case that > pci_dma_configure() is the only caller currently hitting it. Other > discoverable, DMA-capable buses like fsl-mc are still going to face the > exact same problem with or without this patch. > >> for e.g. iproc based SOCs and other SOCs(suc as rcar) have PCI >> world dma-ranges. >> dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; >> >> this patch serves following: >> >> 1) exposes interface to the pci host driver for their >> inbound memory ranges >> >> 2) provide an interface to callers such as of_dma_get_ranges. >> so then the returned size get best possible (largest) dma_mask. >> because PCI RC drivers do not call APIs such as >> dma_set_coherent_mask() and hence rather it shows its addressing >> capabilities based on dma-ranges. >> for e.g. >> dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; >> we should get dev->coherent_dma_mask=0x7fffffffff. >> >> 3) this patch handles multiple inbound windows and dma-ranges. >> it is left to the caller, how it wants to use them. >> the new function returns the resources in a standard and unform way >> >> 4) this way the callers of for e.g. of_dma_get_ranges >> does not need to change. >> >> 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory >> by the new function. > > Which flags would ever actually matter? DMA windows aren't going to be > to config or I/O space, so the memory type can be assumed, and the > 32/64-bit distinction is irrelevant as it's not a relocatable BAR; > DMA-able system memory isn't going to be read-sensitive, so the > prefetchable flag shouldn't matter; and not being a BAR none of the > others would be relevant either. > Thanks Robin; for your reply and attention: agree with you, at present it would not matter, but it does not mean that we do not scope it to make it matter in future. now where it could matter: there is Relaxed Ordering for inbound memory for PCI. According to standard, Relaxed Ordering (RO) bit can be set only for Memory requests and completions (if present in the original request). Also, according to transaction ordering rules, I/O and configuration requests can still be re-ordered ahead of each other. and we would like to make use of it. for e.g. lets say we mark memory as Relaxed Ordered with flag. the special about this memory is incoming PCI transactions can be reordered and rest memory has to be strongly ordered. how it our SOC would make use of this is out of scope for the discussion at this point of time, but I am just bringing in the idea/point how flags could be useful for inbound memory, since we would not like throw-away flags completely. >> >> Bug: SOC-5216 >> Change-Id: Ie045386df91e1e0587846bb147ae40d96f6d7d2e >> Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-on: http://gerrit-ccxsw.broadcom.net/40428 >> Reviewed-by: vpx_checkpatch status <vpx_checkpatch@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> >> Tested-by: vpx_autobuild status <vpx_autobuild@broadcom.com> >> Tested-by: vpx_smoketest status <vpx_smoketest@broadcom.com> >> Tested-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci.c b/drivers/of/of_pci.c >> index 0ee42c3..ed6e69a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/of/of_pci.c >> +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci.c >> @@ -283,6 +283,83 @@ int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> return err; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources); >> + >> +/** >> + * of_pci_get_dma_ranges - Parse PCI host bridge inbound resources from DT >> + * @np: device node of the host bridge having the dma-ranges property >> + * @resources: list where the range of resources will be added after DT parsing >> + * >> + * It is the caller's job to free the @resources list. >> + * >> + * This function will parse the "dma-ranges" property of a >> + * PCI host bridge device node and setup the resource mapping based >> + * on its content. >> + * >> + * It returns zero if the range parsing has been successful or a standard error >> + * value if it failed. >> + */ >> + >> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) >> +{ >> + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); >> + int rlen; >> + int ret = 0; >> + const int na = 3, ns = 2; >> + struct resource *res; >> + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; >> + struct of_pci_range range; >> + >> + if (!node) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + parser.node = node; >> + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); >> + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; >> + >> + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); >> + >> + if (!parser.range) { >> + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", >> + np->full_name); >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); >> + >> + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { > > This is plain wrong - of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards > through parent "ranges" properties, which is completely backwards for > DMA addresses. > > Robin. > No it does not, this patch is thoroughly tested on our SOC and it works. of_pci_range_parser_one does not translate upwards through parent. it just sticks to given PCI parser. >> + /* >> + * If we failed translation or got a zero-sized region >> + * then skip this range >> + */ >> + if (range.cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || range.size == 0) >> + continue; >> + >> + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!res) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto parse_failed; >> + } >> + >> + ret = of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, res); >> + if (ret) { >> + kfree(res); >> + continue; >> + } >> + >> + pci_add_resource_offset(resources, res, >> + res->start - range.pci_addr); >> + } >> + >> + return ret; >> + >> +parse_failed: >> + pci_free_resource_list(resources); >> +out: >> + of_node_put(node); >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_dma_ranges); >> #endif /* CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS */ >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI >> diff --git a/include/linux/of_pci.h b/include/linux/of_pci.h >> index 0e0974e..617b90d 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/of_pci.h >> +++ b/include/linux/of_pci.h >> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static inline void of_pci_check_probe_only(void) { } >> int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, >> struct list_head *resources, resource_size_t *io_base); >> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources); >> #else >> static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, >> @@ -83,6 +84,12 @@ static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> { >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> + >> +static inline int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, >> + struct list_head *resources) >> +{ >> + return -EINVAL; >> +} >> #endif >> >> #if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_MSI) >> > I am posting v2, please have a look at it, it is very much improved design, which address Rob's comments. Regards, Oza.
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote: > [apologies for the silence - I've been on holiday] > > On 03/05/17 05:46, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >> current device framework and of framework integration assumes >> dma-ranges in a way where memory-mapped devices define their >> dma-ranges. (child-bus-address, parent-bus-address, length). > > Well, yes, that is simply the definition of dma-ranges, and remains true > regardless of the particular format of either bus address. > >> of_dma_configure is specifically written to take care of memory >> mapped devices. but no implementation exists for pci to take >> care of pcie based memory ranges. > > That still doesn't make sense. To repeat myself again, PCI devices *ARE* > memory-mapped devices. Yes, there do exist some platforms where I/O > space is not treated as MMIO, but config space and memory space are very > much memory-mapped however you look at them, and in the context of DMA, > only memory space is relevant anyway. > > What *is* true about the current code is that of_dma_get_range() expects > to be passed an OF node representing the device itself, and doesn't work > properly when passed the node of the device's parent bus directly, which > happens to be what pci_dma_configure() currently does. That's the only > reason why it doesn't work for (single-entry) host controller dma-ranges > today. This does not mean it's a PCI problem, it is simply the case that > pci_dma_configure() is the only caller currently hitting it. Other > discoverable, DMA-capable buses like fsl-mc are still going to face the > exact same problem with or without this patch. > the new v2 is hooking callbacks for defualt and pci bus. so now the implementation will not really look cluttered. and for fsl-mc buses, we could choose to implement it in default bus callbacks. will post the patch-set soon. also with these patch-set we really do not need to prepare emulated child node. >> for e.g. iproc based SOCs and other SOCs(suc as rcar) have PCI >> world dma-ranges. >> dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; >> >> this patch serves following: >> >> 1) exposes interface to the pci host driver for their >> inbound memory ranges >> >> 2) provide an interface to callers such as of_dma_get_ranges. >> so then the returned size get best possible (largest) dma_mask. >> because PCI RC drivers do not call APIs such as >> dma_set_coherent_mask() and hence rather it shows its addressing >> capabilities based on dma-ranges. >> for e.g. >> dma-ranges = <0x43000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x00>; >> we should get dev->coherent_dma_mask=0x7fffffffff. >> >> 3) this patch handles multiple inbound windows and dma-ranges. >> it is left to the caller, how it wants to use them. >> the new function returns the resources in a standard and unform way >> >> 4) this way the callers of for e.g. of_dma_get_ranges >> does not need to change. >> >> 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory >> by the new function. > > Which flags would ever actually matter? DMA windows aren't going to be > to config or I/O space, so the memory type can be assumed, and the > 32/64-bit distinction is irrelevant as it's not a relocatable BAR; > DMA-able system memory isn't going to be read-sensitive, so the > prefetchable flag shouldn't matter; and not being a BAR none of the > others would be relevant either. > >> >> Bug: SOC-5216 >> Change-Id: Ie045386df91e1e0587846bb147ae40d96f6d7d2e >> Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-on: http://gerrit-ccxsw.broadcom.net/40428 >> Reviewed-by: vpx_checkpatch status <vpx_checkpatch@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> >> Tested-by: vpx_autobuild status <vpx_autobuild@broadcom.com> >> Tested-by: vpx_smoketest status <vpx_smoketest@broadcom.com> >> Tested-by: CCXSW <ccxswbuild@broadcom.com> >> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci.c b/drivers/of/of_pci.c >> index 0ee42c3..ed6e69a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/of/of_pci.c >> +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci.c >> @@ -283,6 +283,83 @@ int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> return err; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources); >> + >> +/** >> + * of_pci_get_dma_ranges - Parse PCI host bridge inbound resources from DT >> + * @np: device node of the host bridge having the dma-ranges property >> + * @resources: list where the range of resources will be added after DT parsing >> + * >> + * It is the caller's job to free the @resources list. >> + * >> + * This function will parse the "dma-ranges" property of a >> + * PCI host bridge device node and setup the resource mapping based >> + * on its content. >> + * >> + * It returns zero if the range parsing has been successful or a standard error >> + * value if it failed. >> + */ >> + >> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) >> +{ >> + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); >> + int rlen; >> + int ret = 0; >> + const int na = 3, ns = 2; >> + struct resource *res; >> + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; >> + struct of_pci_range range; >> + >> + if (!node) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + parser.node = node; >> + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); >> + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; >> + >> + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); >> + >> + if (!parser.range) { >> + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", >> + np->full_name); >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); >> + >> + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { > > This is plain wrong - of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards > through parent "ranges" properties, which is completely backwards for > DMA addresses. > > Robin. > >> + /* >> + * If we failed translation or got a zero-sized region >> + * then skip this range >> + */ >> + if (range.cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || range.size == 0) >> + continue; >> + >> + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!res) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto parse_failed; >> + } >> + >> + ret = of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, res); >> + if (ret) { >> + kfree(res); >> + continue; >> + } >> + >> + pci_add_resource_offset(resources, res, >> + res->start - range.pci_addr); >> + } >> + >> + return ret; >> + >> +parse_failed: >> + pci_free_resource_list(resources); >> +out: >> + of_node_put(node); >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_dma_ranges); >> #endif /* CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS */ >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI >> diff --git a/include/linux/of_pci.h b/include/linux/of_pci.h >> index 0e0974e..617b90d 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/of_pci.h >> +++ b/include/linux/of_pci.h >> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static inline void of_pci_check_probe_only(void) { } >> int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, >> struct list_head *resources, resource_size_t *io_base); >> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources); >> #else >> static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, >> @@ -83,6 +84,12 @@ static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, >> { >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> + >> +static inline int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, >> + struct list_head *resources) >> +{ >> + return -EINVAL; >> +} >> #endif >> >> #if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_MSI) >> >
On 04/05/17 19:41, Oza Oza wrote: [...] >>> 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory >>> by the new function. >> >> Which flags would ever actually matter? DMA windows aren't going to be >> to config or I/O space, so the memory type can be assumed, and the >> 32/64-bit distinction is irrelevant as it's not a relocatable BAR; >> DMA-able system memory isn't going to be read-sensitive, so the >> prefetchable flag shouldn't matter; and not being a BAR none of the >> others would be relevant either. >> > > Thanks Robin; for your reply and attention: > > agree with you, at present it would not matter, > but it does not mean that we do not scope it to make it matter in future. > > now where it could matter: > there is Relaxed Ordering for inbound memory for PCI. > According to standard, Relaxed Ordering (RO) bit can be set only for > Memory requests and completions (if present in the original request). > Also, according to transaction ordering rules, I/O and configuration > requests can still be re-ordered ahead of each other. > and we would like to make use of it. > for e.g. lets say we mark memory as Relaxed Ordered with flag. > the special about this memory is incoming PCI transactions can be > reordered and rest memory has to be strongly ordered. Please look at "PCI Bus Binding to: IEEE Std 1275-1994 Standard for Boot (Initialization Configuration) Firmware" (as referenced in DTSpec) and explain how PCIe Relaxed Order has anything to do with the DT binding. > how it our SOC would make use of this is out of scope for the > discussion at this point of time, but I am just bringing in the > idea/point how flags could be useful > for inbound memory, since we would not like throw-away flags completely. The premise for implementing a PCI-specific parser is that you claim we need to do something with the phys.hi cell of a DT PCI address, rather than just taking the numerical part out of the phys.mid and phys.lo cells. Please make that argument in reference to the flags which that upper cell actually encodes, not unrelated things. [...] >>> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) >>> +{ >>> + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); >>> + int rlen; >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + const int na = 3, ns = 2; >>> + struct resource *res; >>> + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; >>> + struct of_pci_range range; >>> + >>> + if (!node) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + parser.node = node; >>> + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); >>> + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; >>> + >>> + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); >>> + >>> + if (!parser.range) { >>> + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", >>> + np->full_name); >>> + ret = -EINVAL; >>> + goto out; >>> + } >>> + >>> + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); >>> + >>> + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { >> >> This is plain wrong - of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards >> through parent "ranges" properties, which is completely backwards for >> DMA addresses. >> >> Robin. >> > > No it does not, this patch is thoroughly tested on our SOC and it works. > of_pci_range_parser_one does not translate upwards through parent. it > just sticks to given PCI parser. Frankly, I'm losing patience with this attitude. Please look at the code you call: #define for_each_of_pci_range(parser, range) \ for (; of_pci_range_parser_one(parser, range);) struct of_pci_range *of_pci_range_parser_one(struct of_pci_range_parser *parser, struct of_pci_range *range) { const int na = 3, ns = 2; if (!range) return NULL; if (!parser->range || parser->range + parser->np > parser->end) return NULL; range->pci_space = parser->range[0]; range->flags = of_bus_pci_get_flags(parser->range); range->pci_addr = of_read_number(parser->range + 1, ns); range->cpu_addr = of_translate_address(parser->node, parser->range + na); ... u64 of_translate_address(struct device_node *dev, const __be32 *in_addr) { return __of_translate_address(dev, in_addr, "ranges"); } I don't doubt that you still manage to get the right result on *your* SoC, because you probably have neither further "ranges" nor "dma-ranges" translations above your host controller node anyway. That does not change the fact that the proposed code is still obviously wrong for more complex DT topologies that do. We're doing upstream work in core code here: I don't particularly care about making your SoC work; I don't really care about making Juno work properly either; what I do care about is that code to parse dma-ranges actually parses dma-ranges *correctly* for all possible valid uses of dma-ranges, which means fixing the existing bugs and not introducing more. The principal side-effect of that is that *all* systems with valid DTs will then work correctly. Robin.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote: > On 04/05/17 19:41, Oza Oza wrote: > [...] >>>> 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory >>>> by the new function. >>> >>> Which flags would ever actually matter? DMA windows aren't going to be >>> to config or I/O space, so the memory type can be assumed, and the >>> 32/64-bit distinction is irrelevant as it's not a relocatable BAR; >>> DMA-able system memory isn't going to be read-sensitive, so the >>> prefetchable flag shouldn't matter; and not being a BAR none of the >>> others would be relevant either. >>> >> >> Thanks Robin; for your reply and attention: >> >> agree with you, at present it would not matter, >> but it does not mean that we do not scope it to make it matter in future. >> >> now where it could matter: >> there is Relaxed Ordering for inbound memory for PCI. >> According to standard, Relaxed Ordering (RO) bit can be set only for >> Memory requests and completions (if present in the original request). >> Also, according to transaction ordering rules, I/O and configuration >> requests can still be re-ordered ahead of each other. >> and we would like to make use of it. >> for e.g. lets say we mark memory as Relaxed Ordered with flag. >> the special about this memory is incoming PCI transactions can be >> reordered and rest memory has to be strongly ordered. > > Please look at "PCI Bus Binding to: IEEE Std 1275-1994 Standard for Boot > (Initialization Configuration) Firmware" (as referenced in DTSpec) and > explain how PCIe Relaxed Order has anything to do with the DT binding. > >> how it our SOC would make use of this is out of scope for the >> discussion at this point of time, but I am just bringing in the >> idea/point how flags could be useful >> for inbound memory, since we would not like throw-away flags completely. > > The premise for implementing a PCI-specific parser is that you claim we > need to do something with the phys.hi cell of a DT PCI address, rather > than just taking the numerical part out of the phys.mid and phys.lo > cells. Please make that argument in reference to the flags which that > upper cell actually encodes, not unrelated things. > I think, the whole discussion around inbound flags is not what I intended to bring. this patch does nothing about inbound flag and never intends to solve anything regarding inbound flags. infact I would like to remove point 5 form the commit message. which should keep it out of discussion completely. let met tell what this patch is trying to address/solve 2 BUGs 1) fix wrong size return from of_dma_configure for PCI masters. (which is right now BUG) 2) handles multiple dma-ranges cleanly 3) It takes care of dma-ranges being optional. 4) following is the comment on function of_dma_get_range (which is also a BUG) "It returns -ENODEV if "dma-ranges" property was not found * for this device in DT." which I think is wrong for PCI device, because if dma-ranges are absent then instead of returning -ENODEV, it should return 0 with largest possible host memory. it solves all the above 4 problems. > [...] >>>> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); >>>> + int rlen; >>>> + int ret = 0; >>>> + const int na = 3, ns = 2; >>>> + struct resource *res; >>>> + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; >>>> + struct of_pci_range range; >>>> + >>>> + if (!node) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>> + >>>> + parser.node = node; >>>> + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); >>>> + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; >>>> + >>>> + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); >>>> + >>>> + if (!parser.range) { >>>> + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", >>>> + np->full_name); >>>> + ret = -EINVAL; >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); >>>> + >>>> + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { >>> >>> This is plain wrong - of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards >>> through parent "ranges" properties, which is completely backwards for >>> DMA addresses. >>> >>> Robin. >>> >> >> No it does not, this patch is thoroughly tested on our SOC and it works. >> of_pci_range_parser_one does not translate upwards through parent. it >> just sticks to given PCI parser. > > Frankly, I'm losing patience with this attitude. Please look at the code > you call: > > #define for_each_of_pci_range(parser, range) \ > for (; of_pci_range_parser_one(parser, range);) > > > struct of_pci_range *of_pci_range_parser_one(struct of_pci_range_parser > *parser, > struct of_pci_range *range) > { > const int na = 3, ns = 2; > > if (!range) > return NULL; > > if (!parser->range || parser->range + parser->np > parser->end) > return NULL; > > range->pci_space = parser->range[0]; > range->flags = of_bus_pci_get_flags(parser->range); > range->pci_addr = of_read_number(parser->range + 1, ns); > range->cpu_addr = of_translate_address(parser->node, > parser->range + na); > ... > > > u64 of_translate_address(struct device_node *dev, const __be32 *in_addr) > { > return __of_translate_address(dev, in_addr, "ranges"); > } > > > I don't doubt that you still manage to get the right result on *your* > SoC, because you probably have neither further "ranges" nor "dma-ranges" > translations above your host controller node anyway. That does not > change the fact that the proposed code is still obviously wrong for more > complex DT topologies that do. sorry but I am confused, and sorry again for not getting through on what you said. this patch assumes that the root bus would have dma-ranges. are you saying this code doesn't iterate through way up till it finds valid dma-ranges ? or you are saying of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards through parent "ranges" properties > > We're doing upstream work in core code here: I don't particularly care > about making your SoC work; I don't really care about making Juno work > properly either; what I do care about is that code to parse dma-ranges > actually parses dma-ranges *correctly* for all possible valid uses of > dma-ranges, which means fixing the existing bugs and not introducing > more. The principal side-effect of that is that *all* systems with valid > DTs will then work correctly. > I do see your point now.....and my apologies for not getting it right at the first time. but I would not know all the nitty-gritty of all the code of framework and every complex DT topology of other SOCs. that is the reason we seek for comments from experts like you, to make the patch better. when I say it works on our SOC, I only meant that this patch is tested. so again apologies there. there is one obvious problem is of_translate_dma_address should get called instead of of_translate_address (so no "ranges") instead ("dma-ranges") but with that also as you said, it will traverse all the way up to the DT hierarchy. I think there are 2 problems with this patch. 1) this patch should try to iterate through all the way up to find first dma-ranges and should stop when it finds it. it should not assume that dma-ranges will always be found at the current node. 2) of_translate_dma_address is broken, because if point 1 is achieved, then no need to traverse anymore. but before that, again seeking your opinion, whether we want to go down this path. registering bus specific get_ranges as in PATCH v5 ? in my opinion it is better way of handling it. the original patch which you had in mind, you will have to club both PCI and memory -mapped implementation together. even if dma-ranges (ignoring flags) remain the same in nature, still you have to parse it differently. because address-cells are different. and you will have to handle multiple ranges. I just tried to bring it out to different path with registering bus specific callbacks. > Robin.
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Oza Oza <oza.oza@broadcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote: >> On 04/05/17 19:41, Oza Oza wrote: >> [...] >>>>> 5) leaves scope of adding PCI flag handling for inbound memory >>>>> by the new function. >>>> >>>> Which flags would ever actually matter? DMA windows aren't going to be >>>> to config or I/O space, so the memory type can be assumed, and the >>>> 32/64-bit distinction is irrelevant as it's not a relocatable BAR; >>>> DMA-able system memory isn't going to be read-sensitive, so the >>>> prefetchable flag shouldn't matter; and not being a BAR none of the >>>> others would be relevant either. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks Robin; for your reply and attention: >>> >>> agree with you, at present it would not matter, >>> but it does not mean that we do not scope it to make it matter in future. >>> >>> now where it could matter: >>> there is Relaxed Ordering for inbound memory for PCI. >>> According to standard, Relaxed Ordering (RO) bit can be set only for >>> Memory requests and completions (if present in the original request). >>> Also, according to transaction ordering rules, I/O and configuration >>> requests can still be re-ordered ahead of each other. >>> and we would like to make use of it. >>> for e.g. lets say we mark memory as Relaxed Ordered with flag. >>> the special about this memory is incoming PCI transactions can be >>> reordered and rest memory has to be strongly ordered. >> >> Please look at "PCI Bus Binding to: IEEE Std 1275-1994 Standard for Boot >> (Initialization Configuration) Firmware" (as referenced in DTSpec) and >> explain how PCIe Relaxed Order has anything to do with the DT binding. >> >>> how it our SOC would make use of this is out of scope for the >>> discussion at this point of time, but I am just bringing in the >>> idea/point how flags could be useful >>> for inbound memory, since we would not like throw-away flags completely. >> >> The premise for implementing a PCI-specific parser is that you claim we >> need to do something with the phys.hi cell of a DT PCI address, rather >> than just taking the numerical part out of the phys.mid and phys.lo >> cells. Please make that argument in reference to the flags which that >> upper cell actually encodes, not unrelated things. >> > > I think, the whole discussion around inbound flags is not what I > intended to bring. > this patch does nothing about inbound flag and never intends to solve > anything regarding inbound flags. > infact I would like to remove point 5 form the commit message. which > should keep it out of discussion completely. > > let met tell what this patch is trying to address/solve 2 BUGs > 1) fix wrong size return from of_dma_configure for PCI masters. (which > is right now BUG) > > 2) handles multiple dma-ranges cleanly > > 3) It takes care of dma-ranges being optional. > > 4) following is the comment on function of_dma_get_range (which is also a BUG) > "It returns -ENODEV if "dma-ranges" property was not found > * for this device in DT." > which I think is wrong for PCI device, because if dma-ranges are > absent then instead of returning -ENODEV, > it should return 0 with largest possible host memory. > > it solves all the above 4 problems. > >> [...] >>>>> +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); >>>>> + int rlen; >>>>> + int ret = 0; >>>>> + const int na = 3, ns = 2; >>>>> + struct resource *res; >>>>> + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; >>>>> + struct of_pci_range range; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!node) >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + >>>>> + parser.node = node; >>>>> + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); >>>>> + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; >>>>> + >>>>> + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!parser.range) { >>>>> + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", >>>>> + np->full_name); >>>>> + ret = -EINVAL; >>>>> + goto out; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); >>>>> + >>>>> + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { >>>> >>>> This is plain wrong - of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards >>>> through parent "ranges" properties, which is completely backwards for >>>> DMA addresses. >>>> >>>> Robin. >>>> >>> >>> No it does not, this patch is thoroughly tested on our SOC and it works. >>> of_pci_range_parser_one does not translate upwards through parent. it >>> just sticks to given PCI parser. >> >> Frankly, I'm losing patience with this attitude. Please look at the code >> you call: >> >> #define for_each_of_pci_range(parser, range) \ >> for (; of_pci_range_parser_one(parser, range);) >> >> >> struct of_pci_range *of_pci_range_parser_one(struct of_pci_range_parser >> *parser, >> struct of_pci_range *range) >> { >> const int na = 3, ns = 2; >> >> if (!range) >> return NULL; >> >> if (!parser->range || parser->range + parser->np > parser->end) >> return NULL; >> >> range->pci_space = parser->range[0]; >> range->flags = of_bus_pci_get_flags(parser->range); >> range->pci_addr = of_read_number(parser->range + 1, ns); >> range->cpu_addr = of_translate_address(parser->node, >> parser->range + na); >> ... >> >> >> u64 of_translate_address(struct device_node *dev, const __be32 *in_addr) >> { >> return __of_translate_address(dev, in_addr, "ranges"); >> } >> >> >> I don't doubt that you still manage to get the right result on *your* >> SoC, because you probably have neither further "ranges" nor "dma-ranges" >> translations above your host controller node anyway. That does not >> change the fact that the proposed code is still obviously wrong for more >> complex DT topologies that do. > > sorry but I am confused, and sorry again for not getting through on > what you said. > > this patch assumes that the root bus would have dma-ranges. > are you saying this code doesn't iterate through way up till it finds > valid dma-ranges ? > > or > > you are saying > of_pci_range_parser_one() will translate upwards > through parent "ranges" properties > >> >> We're doing upstream work in core code here: I don't particularly care >> about making your SoC work; I don't really care about making Juno work >> properly either; what I do care about is that code to parse dma-ranges >> actually parses dma-ranges *correctly* for all possible valid uses of >> dma-ranges, which means fixing the existing bugs and not introducing >> more. The principal side-effect of that is that *all* systems with valid >> DTs will then work correctly. >> > > I do see your point now.....and my apologies for not getting it right > at the first time. > > but I would not know all the nitty-gritty of all the code of framework and > every complex DT topology of other SOCs. > that is the reason we seek for comments from experts like you, to make > the patch better. > > when I say it works on our SOC, I only meant that this patch is > tested. so again apologies there. > > there is one obvious problem is > of_translate_dma_address should get called instead of > of_translate_address (so no "ranges") instead ("dma-ranges") > > but with that also as you said, it will traverse all the way up to the > DT hierarchy. > > I think there are 2 problems with this patch. > > 1) this patch should try to iterate through all the way up to find > first dma-ranges and should stop when it finds it. > it should not assume that dma-ranges will always be found at the > current node. > > 2) of_translate_dma_address is broken, because if point 1 is achieved, > then no need to traverse anymore. > > but before that, again seeking your opinion, whether we want to go > down this path. > registering bus specific get_ranges as in PATCH v5 ? in my opinion it > is better way of handling it. > > the original patch which you had in mind, you will have to club both > PCI and memory -mapped implementation together. > even if dma-ranges (ignoring flags) remain the same in nature, still > you have to parse it differently. because address-cells are different. > and you will have to handle multiple ranges. > > I just tried to bring it out to different path with registering bus > specific callbacks. > >> Robin. Hi Robin, I have addressed your comments to the best of my understanding. please have a look at PATCH v6 Regards, Oza.
diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci.c b/drivers/of/of_pci.c index 0ee42c3..ed6e69a 100644 --- a/drivers/of/of_pci.c +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci.c @@ -283,6 +283,83 @@ int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, return err; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources); + +/** + * of_pci_get_dma_ranges - Parse PCI host bridge inbound resources from DT + * @np: device node of the host bridge having the dma-ranges property + * @resources: list where the range of resources will be added after DT parsing + * + * It is the caller's job to free the @resources list. + * + * This function will parse the "dma-ranges" property of a + * PCI host bridge device node and setup the resource mapping based + * on its content. + * + * It returns zero if the range parsing has been successful or a standard error + * value if it failed. + */ + +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources) +{ + struct device_node *node = of_node_get(np); + int rlen; + int ret = 0; + const int na = 3, ns = 2; + struct resource *res; + struct of_pci_range_parser parser; + struct of_pci_range range; + + if (!node) + return -EINVAL; + + parser.node = node; + parser.pna = of_n_addr_cells(node); + parser.np = parser.pna + na + ns; + + parser.range = of_get_property(node, "dma-ranges", &rlen); + + if (!parser.range) { + pr_debug("pcie device has no dma-ranges defined for node(%s)\n", + np->full_name); + ret = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + + parser.end = parser.range + rlen / sizeof(__be32); + + for_each_of_pci_range(&parser, &range) { + /* + * If we failed translation or got a zero-sized region + * then skip this range + */ + if (range.cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || range.size == 0) + continue; + + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!res) { + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto parse_failed; + } + + ret = of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, res); + if (ret) { + kfree(res); + continue; + } + + pci_add_resource_offset(resources, res, + res->start - range.pci_addr); + } + + return ret; + +parse_failed: + pci_free_resource_list(resources); +out: + of_node_put(node); + return ret; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_dma_ranges); #endif /* CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS */ #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI diff --git a/include/linux/of_pci.h b/include/linux/of_pci.h index 0e0974e..617b90d 100644 --- a/include/linux/of_pci.h +++ b/include/linux/of_pci.h @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static inline void of_pci_check_probe_only(void) { } int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, struct list_head *resources, resource_size_t *io_base); +int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *resources); #else static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, unsigned char busno, unsigned char bus_max, @@ -83,6 +84,12 @@ static inline int of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device_node *dev, { return -EINVAL; } + +static inline int of_pci_get_dma_ranges(struct device_node *np, + struct list_head *resources) +{ + return -EINVAL; +} #endif #if defined(CONFIG_OF) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)